Little Falls transcript. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1876-1894, 1887-08-12

10Y tE1iif1e1it survey laS 10 SUBDIVISION
known az Blocks hat tte I'm Is only an
piled to the; sl,h.Iivision platt ed
town. illage or city. II, view Of these
Etaets we think Is lnss.rent that the word
township IS 4 NJ ne clerical error be-
ling inadYerte emily nsea for. the word
town Ifs the word township lie
rejected entirely IS surplnsagc enough
remains to constitute il good dc scription
lcf the property as being in the town OF 81
village Of Little Falla.
The difference l,etweun the descrip-
tionin this cefti6cule and that contained
| ii the certificate Ill Il errick US. Ammer-
MANI 81 MINI. 544 will be apparent on
inspe ction. # IA. ..5 Mo- 3l
We DO not fully understand the point
to the objection that the certificate was
natocknow ledged or executed by the
sheriff Of Morrison county. ItWas exe-
cuted and ack nowledged bv the deputy
sheriff who made the levy and the sale.
AS We understand the law the officer
who makessthe sale is the proper person
to execute the certificate. -@'.. g
The court found as a fact that the
amount realized from this sale was suf-
ficient. to fully satisfy both of the Her
rick Judgments. Without discussing the
evidence it is sufficient to say that we
think it justified the finding. 1t con-;
tains facts and figures sufficient to ena-
bic the court to arrive atthe result by II
mere mathematical calculation. 1t fol-
lows that the power to sell on execution
by either Of these judgments was ex-
shausted, and that plaintiff acquired no
title sunderl either the sale Of June II, ,
1874, or of June %. 1879.
| This leaves onlv: the sale: of April 26,
1871, to be considered. This was made
ION the three executions issued severally
onjunior Herrick Judgment, and the
two Hidden judgments. The objec-
ton that there was no evidence that the
Hidden Judgments had been assigned to
plaintiff, and that the property was sold
at one sale on. all three executions, and
that oneeof the judgn1e tents was docketed
for too large an amount, require no con-
sideration except to say that they fur
lfish no ground for holding the title ac-
[quired at the sale void. The fact that
one Of the executions was void because
the judgment on which it was issued
was already satisfied would not render
the sale void if the other execution s,s
valid. GUM VS.. Heffner, So MINI. 2I:1
The description of the property. par
porting to have beef. sold is, however.
fatally defective %~ a>-.z +: s z<$
d This was the certificate ofsale consil
tered by the court in uerrick VS.. An1-
norman, Supra. When We held the de
sscriptio:l as to one tract Insufficient
The description Of the lots now in con
stroyersy is the same as. the one cols;d-
cred in that case Counsel for appel
liant. however, questions the correctness
of what was then said as Il, a distinction
between descriptions in conveyances
AAtCl = n Of S'sE sIllu GtiOoc III b1lCo !iliNc
by. the execution Of !. statutory p,w,.r..
He also claims that these apply npo;,
one 70 the ,liferens.state Of proofs. III
Herrick VS.. zimmerman we. did not
mean to intimate that to- constitute a
good description on a sale in execution
of a statutory power it must be such
that from a mere inspection of it the
court would know what. land was intend
ed, nor dill we intend to be understood
that parole evidence Of exsrinsic facts
and rcunstances WAS ;iut admissible
to apply the description Or identify the.
premises described. All that wa4*iin
tended 40 be held was stat the la,l.'
should be- describe with sufficient GER
tainty to enable all parties to. identify it
and know what was: being sold thats.n
case Of the execution 81 j statutory,
power " hen the owner Of highland liz
tends mott ana the Inv through its
office sacts in hostility ~ him you. M, s
mot aid or Eeep ont an in erentls Insult
fcient descrip tion BY extriilsic evilcn,s
tending % prove. what the officer prob-
ably INTENDED to sell In those s,.es
the policy off.2tthe Law reqnire,l n,t that
there should exist The means o isssl tow
linxsat some future time what IS other
wise ind fllite and lunee III, TINT
at the time ot the sale IL should 80 With
in the p,5Ysr of all " Il, are lie no
tice5 invited 10 become bid eaels 10 k,lps
what is offered, and Tint il should not be
left I'd be snrmised spr guessed at some
future time to what the ollicer i1.-.
tended This We think - #, sc
lcartlance I'LL an. sppnd policy
g we'll - B, nut lack
son IS. Kooseyelt Il; ohm .Js.ckson
lvss De Child ~.
Ballon ) sR u si,oll MI White ii
Barb. Il;
IN the pls,s.llt sssse It will De phter yeil
that the iin lie exists
tie 40 IS se n d tLe g rtifeate.of
ms on important evidence ii
this cass not Siil other torlner Is
that l,e descrsiip tion 80 al IS il goey tits
this pro- ind fits no other ii tho
county to tlle md lnelit
Idebtor ,is not whence M hin.
ii q, & iisIentiffy prs,lulis-
which the descriItion
|l.i 81 s. suiIic iient INT
4 i ling ID prov ~